The interviews revealed that some states are looking beyond the standard wetland mitigation rules when considering compensation for impacts to habitat and connectivity.
Mitigation is not typically required solely for habitat loss resulting from highway projects in Arkansas unless the land is owned by a state, federal or local government or enrolled in a federal program like the Wetlands Reserve Program.
INDOT has a Woody Revegetation Program for any stream crossing, new bridge or bridge replacement, which functions as a banking program. It is based on re-establishing a wooded corridor as close to the structure as possible, based on the riparian corridor upstream and downstream. For each qualifying project, INDOT has a landscape architect look at the potential to do replanting within the right of way. The Woody Revegetation Program is voluntary on the part of INDOT and these projects are audited and the riparian plantings are monitored so that they may be applied as compensatory credit on other projects. Also noteworthy is that INDOT has been funding liaison positions at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), USFWS and the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (DEM) for specific projects for the past three years. It has been shown that liaisons improve review times, communication, and regulatory interpretation.
Compensatory mitigation for wildlife habitat fragmented by highway projects is not required at this time in Maryland.
New Hampshire DOT uses a compensatory mitigation ratio table to compensate for impacts from habitat fragmentation. The most common forms of mitigation are preservation, enhancement and restoration. There is also a watershed-based in-lieu fee program run by New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (DES). The resource agencies have been known to include special permit conditions which specifically address habitat fragmentation/connectivity compensation.
In New York, the amount of mitigation required for habitat fragmentation is based on negotiation with resource agencies. The New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) uses preservation, enhancement, and creation types of mitigation; however, habitat mitigation is not used often enough for any type to be considered common. In general, close proximity/connectivity to adjacent habitats is preferred when considering mitigation for habitat fragmentation and loss of connectivity of habitats. Compensation monitoring includes population sampling (e.g., Indiana bat mist netting), observation of conservation measures (e.g., nest box use, crossing use, planting survival), and road kill surveys. Resource agencies have included special permit conditions which specifically address habitat fragmentation/connectivity compensation.
Compensatory wetland mitigation and mitigation for habitat for listed species are the most common types of compensation that Oregon DOT uses. For listed species, restoration and enhancement are most common. Oregon natural resource agencies do not accept the purchase of bank credits for the mitigation of habitat fragmentation and connectivity loss. There is a mitigation requirement for connectivity at the EIS level, which is project specific.
In Texas, there is a mechanism in place through an existing agreement with resource agencies that allows for mitigation to replace impacts from habitat fragmentation of non-federally regulated resources, but it is not often used. With the new TCAP, TxDOT is looking at ways to implement a more rigorous system for calculating impacts. The most common types of compensation TxDOT uses specifically for habitat mitigation are preservation, enhancement, restoration, creation, and in-lieu fee. There is an expectation that in the near future, in-lieu fee will be more predominantly used as TxDOT is looking at ways to use banking for wildlife impacts. Resource agencies have included special permit conditions that specifically address habitat fragmentation/connectivity compensation in the form of temporary, enforceable conditions in a Section 7 Biological Opinion.
The table below summarizes the results of the avoidance and compensation interviews by major topics for which the states provided information.
Table 2 Results Summary – Avoidance and Compensation Interviews
State |
How states avoid habitat fragmentation during Statewide & Regional Planning efforts |
How states avoid Habitat Fragmentation at the project planning stage |
Mitigation for habitat loss/ fragmentation (requirements and use) |
Stream/river crossing protocols that consider aquatic habitat and fluvial process requirements in addition to hydraulic criteria? |
Agencies in this state have included special conditions in permits with regards to habitat fragmentation. |
Arkansas |
Issues rarely considered at this level unless listed species are involved | ID potential habitats during alt. dev. and initial review by DOT personnel. Receive comments from agencies during NEPA review process. | Mitigation is not required for habitat loss unless owned by a state, federal or local gov. or enrolled in a federal program. | No |
Not specified |
Indiana |
A study is being developed to prioritize areas within watersheds and ecoregions | Issues are flagged after scoping/field visits. Agency comments & recommendations received during NEPA process. |
Mitigation is not required for fragmentation, but adjacent habitat and connectivity is considered when identifying sites. They are looking to implement a program. | Yes |
Not specified |
Maryland |
Green Infrastructure Tool , IDs critical areas, used to screen projects at statewide level. | GI Tool is used to avoid impacts. Agency input at concurrence points. |
Mitigation is not required for habitat fragmentation. | Yes |
Yes |
New Hampshire |
Working with municipalities and promoting awareness, developing guidelines, some GIS use (GRANIT) | Use of GRANIT, town involvement, federal and state natural resource agencies meet at monthly meetings and provide input. | NH compensates for habitat fragmentation using; preservation, enhancement , restoration, ILF. | Yes |
Yes |
| New York | Reducing fragmentation is identified as a state priority but no maps are available | NY Natural Heritage data is used. Rely on agency comments on NEPA documents or during design phase (for non-NEPA). | NY compensates for habitat fragmentation (infrequently) using; preservation, enhancement, creation. | Yes |
Yes |
| Oregon | Statewide Planning Goal 5 addresses fragmentation and some use of Wildlife Linkages GIS mapping | Agency input during forums and at decision points during the alternatives analysis. | Compensation for listed species habitat at the EIS level only, it is project-specific. | Consider habitat; Yes Fluvial processes; Yes |
Not specified |
| Texas | TCAP GIS mapping of ecoregions can be accessed via coordination with TWPD | Fragmentation is discussed during alt. analysis and addressed in impacts assessments. | Texas has a process for compensating for habitat fragmentation, but is used infrequently. Preservation, enhancement, restoration, creation, ILF. | Yes |
Yes |